房屋养老金：变相房产税还是合理政策？深度解析引发争议的新政

前段时间，网上出现了一则引起轩然大波的消息：政府准备试点征收所谓的"房屋养老金"。虽然官方并未公布具体征收方式，但网上传言是按房屋面积每年征收。以一套100平方米的房子为例，每年需缴纳2-3万元的房屋养老金。

这一消息一出，自然引起了广泛争议。要知道，目前在中国购买房产的持有成本是非常低的，除了物业费以外，几乎不需要承担任何额外费用。如果这项措施实行，持有房产的成本将大幅增加。特别是对那些拥有多套房产的投资客来说，这将是一笔不小的负担，势必会加剧他们向市场抛售手中的房产。对于目前已经萎靡不振的房地产市场来说，无疑是雪上加霜。

人们很快意识到，这项措施虽然打着"房屋养老"的旗号，实际上是变相的房产税。中国经过二十多年的高速发展，城市化进程中拔地而起的各种高楼大厦和小区，建筑年龄已进入20-30年以上的阶段，需要大量资金进行维护保养。政府以此为由推行"房屋养老金"，实际上是为了解决维护资金来源的问题。

这种说法显得有些牵强。经历了多年市场经济的中国人已经很难相信如此简单的说辞。市场经济改革的初衷就是为了提供更多样化、更丰富的选择。房屋养老维修固然是天然存在的刚需，但不同地区的房产由于建筑质量、所属地段和城市本身的价值千差万别，需要的维修资金也是有多有少。怎么可能按照政府的规定一刀切，统一按照一个标准收取呢？

而且，现代社会的专业知识分布在各行各业的从业者头脑中，并不是由政府所垄断的。消息传出后，立刻有人指出，实际上在第一次购买房产时，购房款中就包含了一笔"住房维修基金"。这笔款项在房屋买卖交易完成时就被划入了政府账户。据统计，这笔所谓的房屋维修基金已经积累了5万亿元。由于国内的居民楼大部分都是近20年来新建的，所以这笔基金实际上很少被动用。即使有动用需求，也要面对繁琐的审批程序。因此，这笔住房维修基金几乎没有任何损耗。

然而，在官方推出"住房养老金"政策时，却明显回避了这个问题。这样一来，所谓的"住房养老金"显得完全是在重复收取，而且由原来的一次性收取变成了长期收取。这让人联想到了封建时代地方衙门为了刮地皮而设立的各种苛捐杂税。

在《中华帝国的财政密码》一书中提到过这样的现象：封建时代，地方衙门为了增加收入，会想出各种各样的苛捐杂税名目。但民众的承受能力是有限的，地方衙门收取的苛捐杂税多了，就会影响到中央政府（朝廷）的税收。这时就会出现所谓的"改革派"大臣，提出合理化朝廷财政收入的变法方案。例如明朝张居正的"一条鞭法"，就是将现有的农民负担进行核准，去掉部分不合理的税收，然后统一计算摊派到土地当中自行收取，以简化税收，便于朝廷监管。但时间一长，仍然会冒出更多新的苛捐杂税名目。每一轮改革下来，农民的负担只会越来越重。

住房维修基金在多年之后又以"房屋养老金"的面目重复征收，也是这一现象的完美写照。

面对网上热烈的讨论和负面舆情，一些专家开始出来"灭火"。他们在网上发文称，所谓的"住房养老金"不会向住房的持有人收取，而是通过地方政府的财政补贴、国家财政注入，甚至包括私人捐赠来筹措。然而，这种解释不但没有平息争议，反而展现出一个更糟糕的方案。

若按照之前网上传的做法，"房屋养老金"虽然不合理，但至少还算是"冤有头，债有主"，只向那些持有房产的人，甚至多套房的炒房人收取。如果你是一个租房住的年轻人，完全不用理会这些事情。现在改成由财政来筹措的话，那就相当于全社会所有人，不管你有没有房、有多少房，都要承担一部分所谓的"住房养老金"，这种公平性就更加难以体现。

而且，就像住房维修基金一样，这笔钱真的会用在房屋养老上吗？还是会成为因经济下行而财政收入锐减的地方政府的一个财源？这一点显而易见。

---

Some time ago, there was a sensational news on the Internet: the government is preparing to pilot the collection of so-called "housing pension". Although the official has not announced the specific method of collection, but online rumors are that the annual collection is based on the size of the house. Taking a 100 square meter house as an example, you need to pay a housing pension of 20,000 to 30,000 yuan every year.

Naturally, the news caused a lot of controversy. At present, the carrying cost of buying property in China is very low, and there is almost no additional cost to bear in addition to property fees. If this measure is implemented, the cost of owning a property will increase significantly. Especially for those investors who own more than one property, this will be a big burden and will inevitably intensify their selling of their properties to the market. For the current flagging real estate market, it is undoubtedly worse.

People soon realized that this measure, although under the banner of "home pension", was actually a disguised property tax. After more than 20 years of rapid development in China, various high-rise buildings and communities have been built in the process of urbanization, and the construction age has entered the stage of 20-30 years or more, requiring a lot of funds for maintenance. In fact, the Government is trying to solve the problem of maintaining the source of funds by implementing the "housing pension" on this basis.

That seems far-fetched. After years of living in a market economy, the Chinese find it hard to believe such simple rhetoric. The original intention of market economy reform is to provide more diversified and abundant choices. Although the maintenance of housing for the elderly is a natural necessity, the real estate in different regions varies greatly due to the construction quality, the location and the value of the city itself, and the maintenance funds are also more or less. How is it possible to follow the Government's regulations and charge fees according to the same standard?

Moreover, expertise in modern society is distributed among practitioners in all walks of life, not monopolized by the government. After the news came out, it was immediately pointed out that in fact, when buying a property for the first time, the house purchase payment includes a "housing maintenance fund". The money was credited to the government when the sale was completed. According to statistics, this so-called housing maintenance fund has accumulated 5 trillion yuan. Because most of the country's residential buildings have been built in the past 20 years, the fund has rarely been used. Even if there is a need for use, it has to face a cumbersome approval process. As a result, there has been almost no loss from the housing maintenance fund.

However, when the official "housing pension" policy was introduced, it clearly avoided this issue. In this way, the so-called "housing pension" appears to be completely repeated, and the original one-time charge has become a long-term charge. This reminds us of the various exiles and taxes set up by local government offices in feudal times to scrape land.

In the book "The Financial Code of the Chinese Empire" mentioned such a phenomenon: in feudal times, local yamen would come up with a variety of exorbitants and miscellaneous taxes in order to increase revenue. But the people's ability to bear is limited, local yamen collect too much exorbitant taxes, will affect the central government (court) tax revenue. At this time, so-called "reformist" ministers would appear, proposing changes to rationalize the court's financial revenues. For example, in the Ming Dynasty, Zhang Juzheng's "one line of whiping" was to approve the existing burden of farmers, remove some unreasonable taxes, and then uniformly calculate and distribute them to the land for self-collection, so as to simplify tax collection and facilitate court supervision. But over time, there will still be more new exorbitant taxes. With each round of reform, the burden on farmers will only get heavier.

The housing maintenance fund, repeated years later in the form of a "housing pension," is also a perfect illustration of this phenomenon.

In the face of heated discussion and negative public opinion online, some experts began to "put out the fire". The so-called "housing pension" will not be collected from the owners of the homes, but will be financed through financial subsidies from local governments, injections from the state and even private donations, they said in an online post. However, rather than settle the controversy, this explanation reveals an even worse solution.

If according to the previous online practice, the "housing pension" is not reasonable, but at least it is still a "injustice has a head, a debt has a master", only to those who hold real estate, and even multiple housing speculators. If you're a young person renting, you don't have to worry about these things. If it is now financed by finance, it is equivalent to the whole society, no matter whether you have a house or how many houses you have, having to bear part of the so-called "housing pension", and this fairness is even more difficult to reflect.

And, like the home repair fund, will the money actually be used for home retirement? Or will it be a source of revenue for local governments whose revenues have been cut by the economic downturn? This is obvious.